User Profile: bonesiii


Member Since: October 14, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [2] July 28, 2014 at 9:08pm

    If this is how it sounds:

    I’m glad they fired him, but something much more severe may need to happen when these things occur. (If this thing is how it sounds — if witnesses are telling the truth.) Normal citizens can be arrested for unjustified killing of animals.

    And if the problem was just that the dog was loose, a gun is not going to help in that situation, and really the cop should not have been involved, because to a dog, if you’re not already in the pack, and you’re chasing them, that’s only antagonizing them (which makes that way beyond self-defense, but provoking an attack). I hope they train cops about this kind of thing, or if not, will start soon… It’s pretty basic IMO. Either professionals or people the dog already trusts should handle that, not strangers or people who aren’t trained in how to nonviolently catch a loose dog.

  • July 27, 2014 at 3:59pm

    Along the lines of my “avoid ad hoc patches” principle, the argument isn’t that “no evolutionist patch can be concocted” but that the evidence matches the creation scenario already with no need for that. And your argument here is also losing sight of your earlier premise that observed rates of mutation matter — these things can’t only work for your side. Far more, in fact, for us, since an intelligent designer is a more reasonable explanation of such things! And again, it mirrors computer programming.

    “that might account for telomere chains appearing elsewhere in chromosome 2 post-fusion”

    Problem is those same sorts of mechanisms can explain the data without a fusion, and apparently much better. Another example of how seemingly simple “open and shut” cases for evolution when you don’t “zoom in” (like blink’s original way oversimplification) can actually flip on their heads when you look closer, and premises in your argument undermine that very argument, as they ruin the parts where you suppose that nothing can explain it within a creation model.

    I’ve always said you can theoretically come up with patches to explain away ANY contradictory data (although the causality proof seems to be one exception). Your response, in light of this, is attacking a strawman once again.

  • July 27, 2014 at 3:57pm

    I’m having a hard time taking this as anything but confirmation that you still haven’t even understood the conversation we’re having, as it was made clear early on that this kind of thing is an overlapping prediction of (at least one option within) both models, so is useless to determining which is true.

    “has it never occurred to these guys that the fusion of chimp 2a and 2b is just the latest one?”

    This was covered by the quote about this site being far “more degraded” (as evolutionists would think of it) than the other similar sites. It goes without saying that evolutionists imagine a long history of fusions and other such events. The question is if the observations match this, and it appears they don’t.

    “or that transpositions happen?”

    I thought you read creationist sources? Transpositions are mentioned often. I believe I mentioned it myself earlier as a possible part of a coded (rather than accidental — meaning designed) fusion option.

    “its not whether they are unique that matters.”

    It would certainly have helped your case. :P The point is that since such sites are common, we would expect to find one (with a high likelihood anyways) between those two similar stretches under a non-fusion creation model.

    “really? how so? can you honestly not think of any known mechanism that acts on DNA”

    [see next]

  • July 27, 2014 at 3:56pm

    …specifically, it is also a prediction of the idea that telomeres have other uses in genetic coding, and especially the one that they may be found sprinkled throughout the genome, which was found, as cited. This scientifically falsifies the idea that telomere sequences found within a genome prove a fusion. It also ignores that the arrangement of them does not match predictions.

    “the fusion model predicted where it would find a telomere chain. it had a 0.23% chance of finding it where predicted.”

    This may just be the previous error carrying through still, so see earlier answers in this batch. Basically, we would expect to see other information in between the two similar parts in a non-fusion model, and there’s no reason to think telomeres can’t be part of it. Plus, the option of a creation fusion is still open IMO, and that, too, would expect telomeres.

    You also apparently run into problems here in that there’s far LESS telomeres here than many other non-endcap sites, yet this is supposed to be by far the most recent fusion site. Seems unlikely to me, although possible (esp. with designed rearranging functions).

    Anyways, it seems like much of what you’re saying is just reiterating that the lowest-rung predictions were achieved, which nobody was disputing.

    “i would kill for that kind of luck.”

    Okay then. [more in next]

  • July 27, 2014 at 3:55pm

    The hypothesis was that the similarity on both sides is evidence of a fusion. This means it is appropriate to study the alleged fusion site itself and see if this holds up. If not, the possibility that God simply put those parts together, with new information in between, in humans originally remains valid. Chromosome similarity by itself is not useful as evidence for one view over the other. Hopefully that’s clear now, so I’ll stop repeating it in this round, although no doubt the error will carry forward through most of the rest of your argument (which is why it’s so essential to check all premises before claiming certain conclusions, and only build off of sound support!).

    Also, the conversation started out claiming they were EXACT, not just similar, remember. I assume that wasn’t meant literally, but it was still misleading and needed debunking in case anybody reading along thought it was literally true. In fact much more difference between human DNA and chimps was found in later studies than the original (98% and such) estimates. I get the sense that by using words like “similarity” now you are subtly conceding that point without coming out and saying it…

    “the telomere sequence is a prediction that the model made. it passed.”

    This has been covered. We all agree with this, but this is just a low bar on the requirements needed, and could overlap other explanations…

  • July 27, 2014 at 3:55pm

    You’ve been quite clear that to you, at least in hindsight, the rest of the chromosome is your major factor — I recognize that, but they were not responding to you personally, and are here talking about the original arguments when this all started out. It appears that evolutionists have tried to adapt the argument away from the original main focus. In any case, “in part” certainly seems to imply it’s not the only factor, but it’s the factor where the creation model should apparently differ (the one the JoC article was defending; the non-fusion one), so it makes sense for them to focus on that as explained above.

    Keep in mind that to you, since you already buy into evolution, alternate explanations of why the two sides are so similar to spots in one human genome are not really available. It makes sense, IF you buy into the presupposition of evolution, to take this as evidence there was a fusion. This is why you see evolutionists acting confident there is, but it is logically inappropriate to import this in such a simplistic way to a debate over whether that very presupposition is true (because then it becomes circular reasoning). It’s valid for you to rule out the option of a non-fusion within the conditional analysis of “IF evolution is really our origins”, but that does NOT rule out a non-fusion within CREATION, because creation has tools evolution doesn’t. Make sense? :)

    “chromosome similarity is the reason.”


  • July 27, 2014 at 3:50pm

    Are you actually lying about reading them diligently? You did seem to imply you might not be earlier, when you complained about your perception that I was “expecting” you to read them.

    I could put together a pop quiz for you, but that wouldn’t necessarily be fair based on the human capacity to forget, and this news story is now very old so you might not see it anyways. Maybe if it comes up in the future I’ll use one to test that claim, but I’d have to think about how to design it fairly (I guess it would have to be updated often and older questions dropped off to be based only on recent articles).

    Well, actually, basing one only on the articles linked to in the Topics section would work… hm… I’ll think about it.


    “an ICR page… youre branching out now.”

    The first-listed co-writer of the JoC article and the articles from ICR are the same person. It was stated in the JoC article that they were guest authors not employed by CMI. You shouldn’t be surprised by that if you really had read it…

    “lets play “spot the deception”

    “A cluster of these telomere sequences in the middle of human chromosome 2 has, in part, led evolutionists to postulate that it was produced by the fusion of two smaller ape-like chromosomes.“

    no. the telomere sequence is not the reason we think chromosome 2 was fused.”

    [reply in next]

  • July 27, 2014 at 3:49pm

    …but biblical believers are commanded by God not to, and we believe we will be judged by God about it. Plus, there’s the factor that if we love sin, not God, we may grieve the Spirit and he may leave, so while salvation isn’t works based, we could still lose it. Also, lying could risk more souls going to hell. There is no reason to assume lying on our part.

    “so you want them to get credit for having a limit on how far they are willing to go to deceive? they get caught in lie after lie”

    Such as? You haven’t demonstrated any such thing so far. What you’ve demonstrated is that they don’t agree with your worldview, but they never claimed to — quite the opposite, since they are critics of that worldview. :)

    And no, I was saying that they aren’t dogmatically insisting on just one option as blinknight was, and you seem to be, prior to having all the facts. They were considering multiple options for analysis, and that agrees with one of my personal principles of truthseeking — imagine all possibilities. :) I have always found it an effective tool in finding the right possibility.

    “but because some lies are too big for even them to tell, they should get a pat on the back? and i should read them diligently?

    well, i do read them diligently, actually. thats how i know they are liars.”

    Whenever I see an evolutionist focusing on a bizarre accusation, I always wonder if it’s Inverse Accusation Syndrome at work (projection).

  • July 27, 2014 at 3:48pm

    …simplistic strawman that all we’re talking about is “whether or not the entire chromosome is similar.” But it has been explained to you over and over and saying it multiple ways that this is NOT the issue, since the creation model PREDICTS similarities!

    But the specific option in the creation model of a non-fusion (not after creation anyways; you could semantically call it a fusion during creation, except that no biological descent would be involved) does predict specifically that the site where the two similar portions are joined up should look different from an accidental biological-descent fusion. And that’s what we apparently find for many reasons cited already.

    Again, keep in mind I’m discussing multiple options here — I’m not personally in favor solely of the above option, as various fusion options have been brought up too (and there may be others we haven’t discussed). But focusing, for sake of organization, just on the non-fusion creation model (as I’ll call it for simplicity’s sake), the point is that the observations match the model. And do not match the evolution fusion model.

    “you are using liars as scientific sources. there is no nice way to say that.”

    When we object to claims made by evolutionists, we usually get criticisms like “how dare you accuse them of lying!” Anyways, actually your side has no particular moral foundation against lying — Luc has even defended it before… [cont. in next.]

  • July 27, 2014 at 3:47pm

    In fact, they “zoomed in” even further and showed why the results don’t actually match the predictions.

    Of course, we know it is SOP for evolutionists to say nothing is surprising or problematic anyways, but the actual scientists still have to deal with the problem and when it doesn’t match reasonable predictions, that says a lot. The problem with blithely denying that any results are problematic is it can make the idea unscientific (more than it already is), as it denies a falsification method.

    “so why focus on the telomeres?”

    See above. Also, it was evolutionists who originally told us we had to focus on the telomeres! You yourself said:

    “you have to account for the telomeres”

    I’ve noticed this kind of thing happens with evolutionist arguments often. First they find something that vaguely seems like evidence and insist we must focus on it, so we do, and zoom in. Then, when we show them why it actually works as better evidence for our view, suddenly they want to focus on anything but that. Classic.

    “could it be they are hoping you will see the expected degradation, and conclude that maybe human 2 and chimp 2a and 2b are not that similar?”

    It really seems like you haven’t been paying attention to the conversation we’ve been having. You seem to have a sort of blurry vision, and when you see me mention that a part is not similar, you mix that around with the rest of the discussion and construct the simplistic strawman…

  • July 27, 2014 at 3:40pm

    This isn’t inconsistent with what you said. You said the data is readily available, and they agreed. The papers that have and have not been submitted by scientists are what they are, I don’t see the point in whining that the JoC article writers noticed. If evolutionists think this is a problem, they should do more work to rectify it. :)

    “even amateurs have been running base pair comparisons”

    That’s great, and I’m all for it, but I highly doubt the JoC scientists were referring to amateurs in that statement.

    “instead, they focus their efforts on the telomere region to debunk the rest of the similarity.”

    No, they are not attempting to debunk the “rest of the similarity”, and it matches biblical predictions. I’ve quoted the part that disproves this tack of yours several times now, hopefully that’s enough lol.

    “they are ignoring the fact that the telomere and centromere signals were additional predictions. yes they are degraded, no this is not surprising or problematic.”

    The actual scientists on your side appear to disagree, as cited in the JoC article, as it was stated that there was much more “degeneration” (information that wouldn’t have been there in a fresh fusion site) than observed mutation would produce in the evolutionists’ time alotted. And where did they ignore those predictions? They mentioned them. I thought you read the article? ;)

  • July 27, 2014 at 3:37pm

    In other words, in the original creation, what God put on two separate chromosomes in chimps, he simply put on one in humans (under this option), with new information in between.

    This sort of thing happens in design all the time, fom, including mechanical design, computer programming, simple writing in English, etc. I’m sure as we learn more and more about what these things actually do we’ll start to understand specifically why it’s that way.

    “and as i said before, you can visualize the base pair similarity yourself.”

    That’s fine, but our ability to visualize what your scenario is doesn’t make your scenario the only option.

    “you can download data from the human and chimp genome project”

    That’s wonderful, but again, does not address the actual argument. This data was stated as being factored in the JoC articles, and the results of their searches mentioned. In fact the availability of this information actually works against you, since it’s obvious they couldn’t get away with falsifying the results. Anybody doubting their results can run the same searches themselves. Where you need to argue is in their reasoning, building off of the observations, and if it is unsound, show why (it certainly appears sound to me, and as a logician I have a bit of an idea what that looks like :P).

    “but no, they say

    ‘very little new genomic data, although readily available for analysis, has been presented as evidence’”

    [reply in next]

  • July 27, 2014 at 3:35pm

    “And since sites that could be confused for fusion sites appear to be common anyways, you should probably find at least one on the closest match chromosome.”

    Let’s say it a different way, and pay attention to what I’m actually saying, not what you THINK I’m saying based on misinterpreting one small part.

    Sites that could be misunderstood as fusion sites if you don’t look closely are COMMON accross the genome. Often they look MORE like a fusion site than this particular one. That’s one part. The other part (you seem to be getting these two parts confused) is that the OTHER information on the chromosomes in question (outside the supposed fusion site) is very similar. Now if you combine these two, you see why the fusion argument may fall apart. It would be different if “apparent fusion sites” were extremely rare and the one in question was the closest to one by far. But that is not the case. Think about it.

    We expect to see that some stretches of information between highly similar creatures will be likewise similar, and if the rest of the genome is ruled out as being that similar, then the chromosomes (not the fusion sites) remaining are where it would be expected. Since “apparent fusion sites” are all throughout the genome, we would then also expect to find at least one on this chromosome, and we do. This is fully consistent with the option that God just created humans roughly this way originally.

  • July 27, 2014 at 3:34pm

    “its not necessary for you to quote large chunks of these articles verbatim. I’ve already read them.”

    Evidently not, as you’ve been ignoring the points the quotes are bringing out. Luc also clearly ignored several of them.

    “as an example, lets look at the two part article on (surprise, surprise)”

    Yes, why would that be surprising, since it was in the related links from the main article I linked to? And shall I start saying “surprise surprise fom is linking to evolutionist sites!”?

    “tompkins and bergman are skirting the primary evidence of fusion: chimp 2a and 2b laid side by side are almost identical to human 2″

    No, this was covered. Again:

    ““1) Synteny exists, but this is not a surprise.

    a) Genomic information appears modular and so the stuff coded by the chimpanzee chromosomes would be expected to be found somewhere. Where else would we expect it to be found if all the other genomic regions are already accounted for?”

    Here’s a prime example of why putting the quotes up apparently IS helpful, since in order to say that this is being IGNORED, you yourself must ignore this. I’ll say it again — similarities are NOT evidence of evolution over design, as the design scenario also predicts many similarities!

    And this was also relevant, from me:

    “You could work a loose match between many different chromosomes, and we would expect one to be the closest match. [quote continued in next]“

  • [-2] July 27, 2014 at 1:04pm

    Just read the article, fom. This has also been covered in past discussions here. See here for example:

    “even the most optimistic predictions had collagen not surviving even 3 million years at freezing point, and less than 200,000 years at only 10ºC and less than 15,000 years at 20ºC (in general, reaction rate increases exponentially with temperature3, and dinosaurs are supposed to have lived in a warm climate).”

    And related category here:

  • July 26, 2014 at 12:35pm

    Just another case in point of why evolutionists are anti-science, even while claiming the opposite. Facts need not apply to them.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-2] July 22, 2014 at 4:59pm

    Nice! And they did it quick too. Maybe another old-earther argument bites the… er… sand?

  • July 22, 2014 at 2:41pm

    Alright, got time for one more ICR source:

    “The genome-wide presence of internal telomere sequences is not well documented in the scientific literature. In our research, it became evident that telomere repeats were not unique to the ends of chromosomes.”

    That’s basically covered by previous quotes, but notice that this appears to (mostly) confirm that they did indeed neglect the falsification work.

    “chromosome 2 (the supposed fusion product) contains over 91,000 (0.23 percent) intact internal telomere sequences. Fewer than 300 of these can be attributed to the so-called fusion site.”

    “In the fusion site on chromosome 2, there are a small number of cases where the 6-base telomeres occur in perfect tandem, but never more than two in a row. However, other internal regions of chromosome 2 contain perfect tandems of three to ten telomere repeats.”

    This seems to lead to the odd necessity (under evolution), based on your premises earlier, that these are the remnants of much older fusions, but actually degenerated less, even though they weren’t in a usually disabled region near the centromere! More likely something else is going on here, apparently.

  • July 22, 2014 at 2:10pm

    For example, the original article I cited admitted:

    “Although far from being beyond doubt, a good case can be made that humans did, indeed, have 24 chromosome pairs originally”

    It would be much easier for them to just hide this and claim fusion definitely didn’t happen, but CMI holds to much higher standards than that. I’ve seen many other examples across various articles. Obviously, evolutionist sources need consulted too, though. But that’s where systematic uncertainty comes in — we are unafraid to learn everything, since we just want the truth, while evolutionists seem to like to stay in ignorance and seek out only one side. (Besides, there would be little point to CMI ignoring sound points by evolutionists, if any, simply out of bias; they can’t censor the rest of the ‘net, yanno.)

  • July 22, 2014 at 1:51pm

    “you would have easily been able to answer the question you raised — whether the match ups are based on very fragmentary evidence”

    That actually WAS answered already with a resounding yes. There are more quotes to this end in the second JoC article too that I didn’t bother to include here. Like it or not, they were fragmentary, as was the entire chimp genome project, by the way (and the estimate of total similarity went down, keep in mind).

    “you can’t consider all possibilities by getting the lions share of your information from a single apologist site.”

    That is actually exactly my point to you, fom! You are ignoring creationist sources and getting all your claims from evolutionist sites! You need to have ALL-INCLUSIVE research before you can make confident “one way is definite” claims as you have been doing. It is appropriate, then, to force you to see the things you’ve been purposefully ignoring. Until you know absolutely everything, you should remain in uncertainty as I’ve been doing, and seek more knowledge from both sides. :)

    Besides, this one apologist site has a stellar track record of being honest when research so far seems (key word) to support evolutionist positions. There are several more quotes like that at the pages I’ve been directing to you that I also didn’t put up here. You can check it out for yourself. :)

123 To page: Go